Who the Hell do these guys think they are?

[armyvern]

Can someone please post a list of what exactly the Liberals did for Veterans during their reign?

I'd appreciate it, just for my own sake as I may have missed the news, if whoever began with a list starting with what they did for vets while they had the power ... and Agent Orange was already an issue.

 

[Bigrex]

I apologize to you and the forum readers, but I cannot sit by and ignore a personal attack from someone who hasn't lived my life.

The liberals didn't do much, but it is harder to spend the big money when you have a deficit, tough decisions have to be made, but the Tories have had multi billion dollar surpluses. yet they still refuse to act on behalf of veterans.

 

[armyvern]

Understood.

I find it ironic though, that'd me'd move to excuse inaction of the Liberals on matters pertaining to Veterans based on the huge deficits they had to deal with ... deficits that they played an overwhelmingly huge part of creating all on their own.

 

[GAP]

The liberals didn't do much, but it is harder to spend the big money when you have a deficit, tough decisions have to be made,

Excuse me, but by 1995-6 the $$ started rolling in.....Martin and Chretian had no problems building canoe museums and such....tough decision deciding where it should go Montreal or Shawinigan....

 

[Kirkhill]

Bigrex:  it sounds like you are having a rough go of things.  When did you get out?

 

[RangerRay]

Well for one thing, the Harper governing  technique is totalitarian. He has stated that the opposition has to accept everything he puts forward, no amendments, or he'll call an election, knowing full well that the Liberals are not ready for one. That is how they are bullies, they force their will on everyone, and let everyone know that if confronted by a weaker individual, they'll happily beat the crap out of them.

Using hyperbole like "totalitarian" weakens your arguement.

As I recall, Chretien was a "totalitarian bully" with his own caucus, forcing them to vote for laws they did not agree with.  Many bad laws were pushed through Parliament in his day because of his majority.  Such is our system: he who controls the House, controls the agenda.  In our system, PM Harper cannot "call" an election.  It's not his fault that the Opposition has no principles to defeat his program.  As such, the PM controls the House, and the agenda.

 

[Bigrex]

I used totalitarianism because with Harper it's all or nothing, The government has to work WITH the opposition parties, especially in a minority government, in order to get anything done. If you force feed legislation, not allowing representation from the majority of Canadians to at least offer ways to possibly improve legislation, of course they will vote against it, but if you bring forth a new law, and allow discussion into the details, these laws would pass much quicker. Instead, we get name calling and nit-picking from all parties, while bills get stalled, and the Tories were just as guilty of stalling their own bills this year when opposition parties offered to fast track some, yet the Tories delayed bringing them back for a vote, sometimes for several months. Also lumpimg a large number of bills into one piece of legislation will meet resistance, as the opposition may agree to all but a few of the elements, but those few elements can keep them from supporting it, instead of either breaking it down and passing 8 out of ten laws, and further debating the rest, instead of holding up all ten indefinitely.  And harper may be forcing his caucus to vote for things against their will, but we'll never know because nobody in that caucus is allowed to fart in public without prior written approval from the PMO, with a strict outline of answers to an even stricter list of questions allowed to be asked..


And to the other question. I've been out for two years, and it's been a fight since, and even before my release. A fight with Veterans Affairs, currently awaiting an appeal hearing with VRAB, which will take place roughly 38 months after initially submitting the claim. At the review hearing VRAB said that they believed my account of an accident on ships, since the accident report that I filled out wasn't in my docs, but they said it was of their opinion that if my back injury was serious enough to cause a disability, I would have sought more medical treatment than I did, which was around every second year (pain meds and physio) for 6 years prior to my release, and my claim for aggravated knee OA was denied, stating that the worsening of the OA was coincidental, and the Orthopedic surgeons report was speculative at best, after losing 4 degrees of cartilage on my right knee in the three months following surgery on my left knee (pensioned). Then when released, my VAC pension that they did grant was deducted from my SISIP, to a tune of almost $1500.00 per month, for which we have class action certification hearing in Feb.  I've also been fighting for VIP housekeeping, as with the deductions, my wife had to start working part time to help pay bills, leaving me to take care of the house, which I cannot do well because of my disabilities, but VAC stance is that they don't care if my wife works or not, if she is physically fit, it is her sole responsibility to clean the house and be my nurse, which is putting a real strain on the marriage, to the point I've been sleeping on the couch for the last several months. I'm in pain 24/7 and all I ask is to be treated fairly by the country I was disabled serving and the government that is ruling it.

 

[Reccesoldier]

I used totalitarianism because with Harper it's all or nothing, The government has to work WITH the opposition parties, especially in a minority government, in order to get anything done.

The Harper Government has put the lie to that statement.  He's doing just fine getting things done because the opposition is too afraid of his popularity/Dion's weakness to get off their hands and vote non-confidence.

If you force feed legislation, not allowing representation from the majority of Canadians to at least offer ways to possibly improve legislation, of course they will vote against it, but if you bring forth a new law, and allow discussion into the details, these laws would pass much quicker.

 

I don't recall the Harper government having dismantled all the government committees.  That is the process our laws go through, of course then they get voted on in the house of commons (see my first response) and you and I Bigrex only get to comment on the overall job they (the MP's) do every 5 years. 

You couldn't improve legislation with all the wishes in the world, our government is practically autonomous except for elections. 

The only thing holding up the legislation that our elected minority government has passed through the HoC is an unelected patronage old-boys club that owes its loyalty to the government that the plurality of Canadian Voters did away with during the last election.

Instead, we get name calling and nit-picking from all parties, while bills get stalled, and the Tories were just as guilty of stalling their own bills this year when opposition parties offered to fast track some, yet the Tories delayed bringing them back for a vote, sometimes for several months.

Business as usual.

Also lumpimg a large number of bills into one piece of legislation will meet resistance, as the opposition may agree to all but a few of the elements, but those few elements can keep them from supporting it, instead of either breaking it down and passing 8 out of ten laws, and further debating the rest, instead of holding up all ten indefinitely.

Say it isn't so!!!   I certainly hope that you are not trying to imply that this tactic was dreampt up by the Conservative government of Steven Harper :

And harper may be forcing his caucus to vote for things against their will, but we'll never know because nobody in that caucus is allowed to fart in public without prior written approval from the PMO, with a strict outline of answers to an even stricter list of questions allowed to be asked..

  See above : :

 

[aesop081]

I used totalitarianism because with Harper it's all or nothing,

The Liberals indeed have a choice. They can stand and opose the government. That they are not ready for an election is of their own doing and the Canadian people should not be forced to endure a period of no progress just because the Liberals couldnt manage their finances and elect a leader that could, well, lead. If the government puts forward a confidence motion that the Liberals are so against, they can put their money where their over-active mouths are and vote against it.  Instead they chose to agressively abstain. Screw them.

In this country, we have more than just the oposition to act as "checks and ballances" to the Governments power. The oposition parties carry alot of weight in various comitees and do not forget that, regardless of your feelings on the red chamber, no bills comes into law without it.

Again, if the oposition finds Conservative policies so unacceptable they should call the Government's bluff and let Canadians decide.

 

[RangerRay]

I used totalitarianism because with Harper it's all or nothing, The government has to work WITH the opposition parties, especially in a minority government, in order to get anything done. If you force feed legislation, not allowing representation from the majority of Canadians to at least offer ways to possibly improve legislation, of course they will vote against it, but if you bring forth a new law, and allow discussion into the details, these laws would pass much quicker. Instead, we get name calling and nit-picking from all parties, while bills get stalled, and the Tories were just as guilty of stalling their own bills this year when opposition parties offered to fast track some, yet the Tories delayed bringing them back for a vote, sometimes for several months. Also lumpimg a large number of bills into one piece of legislation will meet resistance, as the opposition may agree to all but a few of the elements, but those few elements can keep them from supporting it, instead of either breaking it down and passing 8 out of ten laws, and further debating the rest, instead of holding up all ten indefinitely.  And harper may be forcing his caucus to vote for things against their will, but we'll never know because nobody in that caucus is allowed to fart in public without prior written approval from the PMO, with a strict outline of answers to an even stricter list of questions allowed to be asked..

There is nothing in the Constitution or the British North America Act stating that the "government has to work with the opposition parties".

If Dion were in the same position that the PM is currently in, he would be doing the exact same thing.  To think otherwise would be incredibly naive.  Even though he is in a minority situation, the PM is under no obligation to customise his policies to the demands of the Opposition.  His party was elected on a platform and they are proceeding with it.  It's not the Conservatives' problem that the Opposition lacks principles and courage to defeat this government.

Many of the tactics you describe were used with relish by the Liberals under Jean Chretien and Pierre Trudeau (letting bills die on the order paper, pushing through omnibus bills, not consulting with other parties, etc.).  If I recall correctly, Chretien never had much more than 40% of the vote, yet he acted "totalitarian" as well.

Much of the "totalitarianism" you decry is inherent in the Westminister parliamentary system.  Read The Friendly Dictatorship by Globe and Mail columnist Jeffrey Simpson (who is not a Tory supporter), which was written during the Chretien years.

 

[Boxkicker]

Unless the Oath has changed (and I don't think it has - but stand ready to be corrected), the vast majority of the members of this board have sworn "Allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second, her lawful heirs and successors".  United States officers swear to uphold their constitution.

I think you have some valid points there - they'd be taken more seriously if presented as less of a "rant".

  Hello Roy yes I was on a bit of a rant. As for the Oath it has been 22 years if I remember right after Queen E 2 her heirs and sucessors and the constitution.

  Anyway I digress my point is that we have a PM that wishes to get things done in my personal opinion, it is not just every special interest group and feel good project that comes along, that gets the nod, and people that do not wish to agree which is their right. Never seem to place anything in some sort of intelligent fashion, it always seems to go straight to the rhetoric and garbage. 

 

[Rodahn]

"Environment Minister John Baird has said he doesn't want to invite them in order to prevent partisan bickering on the international stage, but the opposition has suggested that he wants to avoid being criticized or embarrassed."

I think that this states it all.........

 

[Reccesoldier]

  Hello Roy yes I was on a bit of a rant. As for the Oath it has been 22 years if I remember right after Queen E 2 her heirs and sucessors and the constitution.

The Queen, her heirs and successors according to law.  The Constitution isn't mentioned

 

[Nfld Sapper]

  Hello Roy yes I was on a bit of a rant. As for the Oath it has been 22 years if I remember right after Queen E 2 her heirs and sucessors and the constitution.

  Anyway I digress my point is that we have a PM that wishes to get things done in my personal opinion, it is not just every special interest group and feel good project that comes along, that gets the nod, and people that do not wish to agree which is their right. Never seem to place anything in some sort of intelligent fashion, it always seems to go straight to the rhetoric and garbage. 

Again here is the acutal Oath,

I, _________, do swear (solemnly declare) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD (delete if declaration)

No constitution, the Americans use constitution.